“No doubt a big reason for this falsehood is this: Britain and France did sign a Nonaggression Pact with Hitler that “partitioned” another state — Czechoslovakia. That was the Munich Agreement of September 30, 1938.

Poland too took part in the “partition” of Czechoslovakia too. Poland seized a part of the Cieszyn area of Czechoslovakia, even though it had only a minority Polish population. This invasion and occupation was not even agreed upon in the Munich Agreement. But neither France nor Britain did anything about it.

Hitler seized the remaining part of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This had not been foreseen in the Munich Agreement. But Britain, France, and Poland did nothing about it.”

By September 17, 1939, when Soviet troops crossed the border, the Polish government had ceased to function. The fact that Poland no longer had a government meant that Poland was no longer a state.

On September 17 when Molotov handed Polish Ambassador to the USSR Grzybowski the note Grzybowski told Molotov that he did not know where his government was, but had been informed that he should contact it through Bucharest. See polish_state_collapsed.

In fact the last elements of the Polish government crossed the border into Rumania and so into internment during the day of September 17, according to a United Press dispatch published on page four of the New York Times on September 18 with a dateline of Cernauti, Rumania. See polish_leaders_flee.html

Without a government, Poland as a state had ceased to exist under international law. This fact is denied — more often, simply ignored.”

Why did Churchill say that Poland was the “greedy hyena of Europe”? Could it be because Poland participated with Germany in the partition of the Czechoslovak state?

19 August 1939 The Soviet Union and Germany signed non-aggression agreement, pr so called “The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Germany, USSR).”

January 1934, Pilsudski – Hitler pact or The German Polish Non-Aggression Treat . Five years prior to the Germany Soviet Union non-aggression agreement!

This agreement had a clause that it will remain enforce even in time of a war.

Let’s recall also the Pact of Four, signed between the Britain, Germany, Italy and France in 1933.

The Pact of four (Italy, Germany, England, France).

“Pact of four” was an attempt to oppose the League of Nations’ “dictate” by four great powers that sought to impose their hegemony all over Europe. Ignoring the Soviet Union, the four powers attempted to pursue a policy of the isolation of the Soviet Union, eliminating it, at the same time, from participation in European Affairs of the other States of Europe.

“Pact of four” meant “conspiracy of the British and French governments with German and Italian fascism, that weren’t hiding their aggressive intentions. The Pact with the fascist state meant an abandonment of the policy of strengthening the United front of peaceful countries against the aggressive states like Germany, Italy and Jpan.

June 18, 1935.The British – German Naval Agreement (A.G.N.A.)

“Exchange of Notes between His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the German Government regarding the Limitation of Naval Armaments”

The British government has agreed with the Hitler’s demands that the “power of the German fleet was 35% in relation to the total power of the British Empire’s fleet”. The proportion of 35:100 was used as the total tonnage of the fleet, and for each class of vehicles.

In relation to the submarine forces of Germany was entitled to equality with Britain, but must not exceed 45 % of the tonnage of the British submarine force. Provided that in case of violation of this limit, Germany would inform the British government.

Germany also took upon itself the obligation to comply with the qualitative restrictions imposed by the Washington Treaty of 1922 and London Treaty of 1930.

August 31, 1935, The U.S. Congress passed the first Neutrality Act (1935-1937)

The 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits was agreed to. It was signed on July 20, 1936 and came into effect on November 9, 1936. Participated Australia, Britain, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, the Soviet Union, Turkey, and Yugoslavia.

The Anti-Comintern Pact was an anti-communist pact concluded between Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan (later to be joined by other, mainly fascist, governments) on November 25, 1936 and was directed against the Third (Communist) International. Signed by Ribbentrop and Mushakoji.

The agreement with Germany and Japan, who (under the banner of struggle against the Comintern) set up the military alliance in order to gain world domination.

It was an anti-Soviet Union pact.

In November 1937 to the “anti-Comintern Pact” was joined by Italy, and later a number of others.

In 1939-40, the Pact turned into an open military Alliance (see Berlin Pact).

Ber the Britannica Encyclodedia: “Anti-Comintern Pact, agreement concluded first between Germany and Japan (Nov. 25, 1936) and then between Italy, Germany, and Japan (Nov. 6, 1937), ostensibly directed against the Communist International (Comintern) but, by implication, specifically against the Soviet Union.

The treaties were sought by Adolf Hitler, who at the time was publicly inveighing against Bolshevism and who was interested in Japan’s successes in the opening war against China. The Japanese were angered by a Soviet-Chinese nonaggression treaty of August 1936 and by the subsequent sale of Soviet military aircraft and munitions to China. For propaganda purposes, Hitler and Benito Mussolini were able to present themselves as defenders of Western values against the threat of Soviet Communism. ”

The agreement relating to the transfer of Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to German .

The meeting in Munich Führerbau was held on September 29-30. The basis of the agreement was Italian proposal but it does not differ from the demands made earlier by Hitler at a meeting with Chamberlain. Chamberlain and Daladier accepted the proposals.

In the morning of 30 September 1938, Chamberlain, Daladier, Mussolini and Hitler signed the Munich agreement. After that, the Czechoslovak delegation was invited into the hall where the agreement was signed .

Leadership of UK and France put pressure on the government of Czechoslovakia, President Benes, without the consent of the National Assembly took agreed with the agreement.

The Roosevelt administration publicly hailed the Munich Agreement of 1938 for avoiding war but privately realized it was only a postponement that called for rapid rearming.

October 1938 – real beginning of the WWII – per Munich pact Germany, Poland and Hungary invaded and partitioned Czechoslovakia.

The Munich Pact was signed by Britain, France, Germany and Italy and hailed by the U.S.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

34 Comments

I won’t debate whether we call the USSR’s entry into Poland in 1939 an invasion or not. As we see that is very ambiguous in this context. But I will make a few points about the areas “occupied,liberated,or whatever to call it”.

Poland seized huge areas of ethnic Rus territories during the Russian Revolution at the end of WWI. Those territories had been seized first from Rus during the late Middle Ages. And held by Poland until the 18th Century.When Imperial Russia reunited them with the other Rus lands.A part of those territories (Galicia) ,was not reunited with Russia in that period. But instead was seized and held by the Austrian Empire.But the vast majority of the population was still ethnic Rus during that entire period.

At the end of WWI the Western Allies,putting together a new “Polish state” drew an ethnic border of that state in the East.And nicknamed it the “Curzon Line” after the British statesman tasked with drawing the Polish Eastern border. The new Polish regime didn’t like that line. They lusted after recreating the ancient Polish state which held vast non-Polish ethnic territory. And saw the Russian post-WWI collapse as their chance to take more territory.

Throughout the inner-war period they held that territory like a “colonial fief”. They constantly oppressed the non-Polish majorities in that territory.Moved Polish settlers into the region.So that by the start of WWII many people in the region (probably the majority) were happy to see Poland defeated. Many of them welcomed the Soviet reunion. Others,also happy to see Poland gone.Were subverted to the nazi ideology and instead supported Germany. They are the ancestors of today’s neo-nazi Ukrainians. The only thing the two sides agreed on was they wanted Poland out of their land.

When the USSR moved into that territory. They almost recreated the “Curzon Line”. Taking over ancient Rus lands. While the majority ethnic Polish territories instead were occupied by Germany. The Rus majority territories were united to their ethnic brothers in the Soviet Ukraine and Belarus. For a 2 year period ,until the nazis invaded.The newly reunited territories were safe from nazi rule. After the nazi invasion of the USSR,those territories became a “killing field” and hundreds of thousands of people (at the least,probably well over a million) died there.

At the end of WWII,the USSR refused to give those non-Polish territories to Poland. And instead,with the agreement of the other Allies set up an ethnic Polish state. And agreed to let that state have territory that had been Polish centuries before. But had been German since the Middle Ages. Personally,I think they “over did it”. They should have only given Poland “some” of the more “Polish” German territories.But “all” the Allies agreed to that,and it was done.

All of those facts seem to be “conveniently” overlooked or not discussed in Poland today. Instead they have created a myth of Polish History. In which pre-WWII Poland. A state only “maybe” 2rds Polish (at the very best) is the only victim. A Poland ,that was a leading neo-fascist state during that period. A state that cooperated totally with Hitler,until he turned on them. Is somewhat thought of as the hero. Pre-war Europe had very few “heroes”,and Poland,certainly wasn’t one of them.

Also thier birth rate was much lower than of the indigenous Slavic peoples. Stalin’s mistake was that he was too soft on Germany(“History shows that Hitlers come and go, but the German people and the German State remain.”) and did not liberate all Slavic land. (For example Czechoslowakia could have been compensated for the loss of its eastern territories.) This would have neutralized the German threat for all time and prevented Germany from committing genocide against Slavic peoples again.

The problem I run into constantly is people trying to use history to further an agenda. Instead of understanding just plain pure history.

The maps you posted, for goodness sake’s, were from the early and middle Middle Ages. Things changed over the centuries since then. Whether in 1000 those areas were Slav is not important. In 1945 most of those areas had been Germanized for at least 4-5 centuries at least. Upper Silesia,Southern East Prussia,Eastern Pomerania. Maybe even a tiny slice of Lower Silesia had some Polish ethnic people living there. And those areas could possibly fairly go to Poland. Even the Danzig (Gdansk) area could have gone to Poland to eliminate the so-called Free State. But the other areas were at least 98-99% German. And had been since at least the late Middle Ages.If we used your criteria,at least 10% of the Polish land in Eastern Poland today had been part of Rus at the time of the maps you posted.But the USSR didn’t claim them since for centuries they had been Polanized . And the people in those areas considered themselves as Poles.

You are free of course to dislike Germans and Germany. But don’t attempt to twist history to fit that agenda.History is neutral about ethnic peoples. It simply records “what is” at a particular moment.

I’m not pursuing an agenda. It was you that falsely claimed they “over did it”. But they obviously did not. I’m only debunking revanchist propaganda by Germany that falsely claims that those territories are German and wants to obscure the German invasion and genocide against the Slavic peoples. Even in the 19th century Germany passed a Colonization Act to colonize the Slavic territories. The claim “German since the Middle Ages” is obviously wrong. The rulers were German but the population was ethnic Slavs.

“Otto von Bismarck’s political course also remained under the leadership of Prussia’s Reichseinigungspolitik after the founding of the German Reich in 1871. He tried to further integrate the former Polish territories in the German Reich. Any Polish special status was forbidden. The education system was based entirely on the German language and legislation since 1873. [b]By the Colonization Act passed in 1886, German farmers were to settle among the Polish population.[/b] The policy of repression against the Polish population continued into the 20th century.”http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=https://archive.is/8ifEt

Why should the allies reward Germany for this genocide? After the horrors of WW2 and sacrifices of the Slavic peoples there is no justification why they should still remain under German occupation and forced Germanization instead of being liberated. The German policy to wipe out all Slavs in those occupied territories was only successful to some extend. The German occupiers struggled with the “Ostflucht” and the higher birth rate of the Slavic peoples that countered forced Germanization. (Also after WW2 Western Germany even payed billions to Eastern European governments so the German migrants were allowed to leave back to Western Germany.)

It is not about disliking Germans or Germany (also it is not my fault that the German history is full of crimes), but about the failure of Stalin to neutralize the threat of a revanchist Germany to prevent any renewed aggressions. Instead of creating or strengthening allied Slavic states that would see Russia as a liberator and to defeat the German threat for all time, he wanted a unified neutral Germany that although still capitalist and crowded with nazis somehow would not be hostile to Russia and its allies. That was illusory and led to more bloodshed in the future. Despite being defeated the German nazis continued thier war against Russia:
“Under Operation Sunrise, some 5,000 anti-communist Eastern European and Russian personnel were trained for operational missions at a camp at Oberammergau in 1946, under the command of General Sikes and SS General Burckhardt. This and related initiatives supported insurgencies in areas such as Ukraine, which were not entirely supressed by the Soviets until 1956.”https://archive.is/I8HOC

“The BND, the West German intelligence service under former Wehrmacht Gen. Reinhard Gehlen, formed a new relationship with Bandera. It was a natural union. During the war, Gehlen’s senior officers argued that the USSR could be broken up if only Germany wooed the various nationalities properly. Bandera had continued lines into the Ukraine,
and in March 1956 he offered these in return for money and weapons.71”http://www.archives.gov/iwg/reports/hitlers-shadow.pdf

Another example for such a failure is Kosovo where Tito rewarded the Albanians for thier nazi collaboration and genocide against the Serbs with further Albanization and weakening of Serbia and Yugoslavia. We all know the result. This is what happens if you naivly strengthen your enemies. Another example is Gorbachevs support for the annexation of Eastern Germany by Western Germany and, by the way, without a referendum. That was nothing but a reward for continued complicity in threatening Russia with a nuclear holocaust (see for example NATO Double-Track Decision). As a result Yugoslavia was destroyed and occupied again by Germany and Russia faces the German army at its borders again and a nazi puppet regime in Ukraine. Further rewards for Germany won’t achieve different results.

Its sad to me that someone posts on history and understands so little about it. The German colonization law had absolutely nothing to do with those territories that were already ethnic German. The Germans didn’t even consider them as having been Polish in the early Middle Ages.That law was directed at the areas annexed from Poland during the 18th Century. Where yes,the population was in the majority Polish.I also don’t understand how you claim a “genocide” from that period. Up until the nazi era,where there were attempts at genocide. The earlier periods of German settlement (even Bismarck’s) did not entail genocide. The settlement in the Middle Ages was encouraged by Slavic nobles in those lands to develop their lands. It was the model for Catherine II’s and Alexander I’s planting of German settlements in Russia during the 18-19th Centuries.But just like the dangers of today’s mass immigration. Once the numbers were so large the population started to Germanize in those lands. The nobles themselves intermarried with German nobles and Germanized as well. Its estimated that 30% of Eastern Germans today have some Slavic DNA from that period.But in the centuries that followed they became German. Even in Poland itself,especially Western Poland.There were thousands of German settlers in that period.But never so many as to Germanize the population.Instead it was the opposite. Cities like Krakow that in the Middle Ages was heavily German,over the centuries assimilated the Germans into Poles.As far as I know there are no DNA studies,in Western Poland like the one done in Eastern Germany. But I suspect one would show a large population of German ancestry among people today considered Poles.

As to countries with “crimes” in their history. I don’t know which country you are from. But I guarantee if you post it I will be able to name crimes from your history. Germany from the nazi period was awash in crimes,I’ll give you that. But they weren’t anymore criminal than any other state before that period. You want to talk of genocide,talk to the Irish about England. Or the Balkan peoples and the Armenians about the Ottoman Empire.And the Latin Americans about Spain and Portugal. Here we come to the point I mentioned in the other post. You have an anti-German and political agenda. And seek out anything you can, to twist history to match that agenda. The Germans are certainly not blameless.They did some horrible things in their history. But they are certainly not alone or special in that either (minus the nazi period).

Europe has a long history of neighboring peoples being assimilated to other cultures. And few more so than in Eastern Europe.Poland,Hungary,and Eastern Germany in particular.Probably 25% of Poland’s noble class is of Rus,Lithuanian, or German origin (at least). You check the history of the great families and its easy to prove that. As for Hungary,the percentage is probably more than that. And as I said,around 30% of Eastern Germans have some West Slavic ancestry from the Middle Ages period.

Hating the nazis as I do,I find it difficult to need to defend Germany like this. But history is history,and shouldn’t be misused to further an agenda.If you are going to post about history its better to make sure you are right on the subject first. Since you like maps here is one closer to the modern time period. It shows the extend of German settlement in the East based on census figures.It plainly shows the areas of majority population https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/German1910.png.

Your allegation of “an anti-German and political agenda” and your attempts to deviate do not change any of the historical facts. removed. Stop the personal attacks. Mod No historian denies that it was a conquest by the sword. German chroniclers of that time documented it. Also the anti-Slavic laws over the centuries of German occupation are documented and prove the continued existence of a Slavic population despite the German policy to wipe them out completely. Your speculations show that you don’t know that part of history and you have never read any German sources from that time. For many centuries the German invaders waged war against the Slavic peoples to wipe them out and conquer thier homeland. One of the oldest Slavic songs is a war song that has been verbally passed on to the next generation for over 1000 years: “Serbja so do Nĕmcow hotowachu”(Sorbs are preparing [for war] against Germans).
Also the Saxons were slaughtered by Charlemagne. In 782 he slaughtered 4500 Saxons in a single massacre. Pagan people were no humans in the eyes of the German invaders.
Even in the 21st century and despite the risk of its own annihilation in a nuclear war Germany doesn’t want to stop its aggressions against Slavic peoples:
“An influential publicist and former Head of the German Defense Ministry’s Planning Staff is criticizing the “expansive ambitions” of Germany’s current policies toward the Ukraine.”http://german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58703

Your map only shows how successful the German occupiers were and that your claim (they “over did it”) is false. The Allies were very generous towards thier defeated enemy and that even twice – after WW1 and WW2.

Slavic nobles were invited to a banquet under false pretense and then slaughtered by the German invaders to break the successful resistance of the Slavs on the battlefield:
“While the oboditic and lutianic north of the Sorbs lived their political independence until the twelfth century, almost all the Sorbian-Wendish tribes were already subject to definite surrender in the tenth century. On the decisive crusade of Margrave Gero against the Niederlausitzer Sorbs / Wenden in 963 AD, chronicler Widukind of Corvey reports: “During this time Markgraf Gero defeated [with hardest warfare] the Slavs, who call themselves Lusizer, and subdued them completely Not without his own serious injury, and with the loss of his nephew, the best man, and many other noble men. ” As early as 939 AD, Gero, with the premonition of peaceful intentions, had invited Thirty Princes to a banquet and murdered at night insidiously to take the leadership of the Slavs.”https://archive.is/YIoLH

The “Stalingrad” of the 1240s:“Hoping to exploit Novgorod’s weakness in the wake of the Mongol and Swedish invasions, the Teutonic Knights attacked the neighboring Novgorod Republic and occupied Pskov, Izborsk, and Koporye in autumn 1240. … The knights’ defeat at the hands of Alexander’s forces prevented the crusaders from retaking Pskov, the linchpin of their eastern crusade. The Novgorodians succeeded in defending Russian territory”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice

The nationalistic German representative Wilhelm Jordan in the Frankfurt Parliament 1848 was even proud of the genocide:
“No,” he exclaimed, “I admit it without any drawbacks: our right is no other than the right of the stronger, the right of conquest.” The Germans conquered Polish lands, but these conquests are In a way that they can no longer be returned, as they have so often been said, not the conquest of the sword, nor the conquest of the plow, “and he now proceeds in a successful historical picture , How the German essence has been progressing for centuries in the East, and how the conquests of colonization have been strengthened by arms. “I therefore maintain,” he continues, “the German conquests in Poland were a necessity of nature, and the law of history is different from that of the compendia, and it is only natural laws that one nation states that a nationality by its mere existence” … “Prussia can be satisfied if one blames it for its genocide.” It can proudly remain silent and let his work speak for itself. “http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=https://archive.is/g8ovu

“The anti-Slavic or anti-Russian mission
…
On July 25, 1848, Wilhelm Jordan called the deputies in the Polendebatte of the Paulskirchenversammlung to finally get to a “healthy Volkssegoismus”. “In the East,” the Germans repeatedly succeeded in making “conquests of the sword” and the “ploughshare” over the course of history. The Germans could and should confide in this “right to conquest” (RfdN, Vol. 2: 1145 f.).Another parliamentarian spoke of the “holy war”, which should in any case be carried out “between the culture of the West and the barbarism of the East” (Wollstein 1977: 303). [ 41 ] Another stated: “If ever war were to come, there would be a war between Germans and Slavs” (RfdN, Vol. 4: 2779). [ 42 ] Heinrich von Gagern wrote in retrospect about the period of the bourgeois revolution:
The war with Russia, for the sake of the Baltic Sea and the East Seeprovinzen, around Poland, about the Danube and the oriental conditions … was the most popular of all Germany (cf. Valentin 1977, vol. 1: 544).

Bakunin reported that “the senseless cry of the Germans against the Slavs” had been heard most loudly in the Frankfurt Parliament in 1848-49. This would not have had anything to do with democracy, but had been “the call of German national egoism.” The Germans had for a long time been accustomed to regard the “Slavs” as their own, and they maintained that they had to “hold them under the stick” in order to discipline them (cf M.W 18: 609). Bakunin remarked:
In this hatred of the Slavs, in this Slavic confrontation, all parties (1848/49) were unanimous; … The loudest cries were the Democrats against the Slavs: in newspapers and pamphlets, in parliaments and popular assemblies, in the clubs, beer kinks and on the street… Such a noise was so incessant a storm that the Slavs, (Bakunin 1973: 137 f.), Which would have killed all of them.
The hatred of Russia was marked by Bakunin as one of the “strongest nationalities in Germany” (cf n. MEW 18: 613).
The speeches of the Paulskirchenversammlung document how much an alleged “Slavic danger” was regarded as a threat to German culture and German economic power. Six decades later, this danger became a justification for the alleged necessity of the First World War (Lammich 1978: 3, 5).”https://archive.is/aOHwM

Translated excerpt from the book “Politik”(1899) by German historian Heinrich von Treitschke :
“Without endless pain the oppressed is not from. In this way the most remarkable merging has occurred The soil of the North-East German colonies. It was a Genocide can not be denied; But after the mixing It was a blessing. What would the Prussians have in Of history? The superiority of the Germans over The Prussians were so great that it was a fortune for these as well as for the Wend was when they were Germanized. ”https://archive.org/stream/politik01trei#page/280/mode/2up

I see that the problem is not that you can’t find cherry picked, 19th and 20th Century sources to present an argument. The problem is you don’t understand how things were in historical times.Without that understanding you can never grasp history.The German (and not just German) settlement of a country was more of “assimilation” than of conquest. A sword can “seize” a territory.But it alone can’t make a territory conform to an ethnic character.Certainly not in the past. As I said DNA shows 30% of the current “German” population of Eastern Germany has West Slavic ancestry. They are no less German today in 2017 than other Germans.They think of themselves as Germans. They speak and “think” in German.They are in effect “German” today.

You talk about Charlemagne slaughtering some of the Saxons to convert the country to Christianity. Did it occur to you that those Saxons were themselves Germans. And that most of Charlemagne’s Franks are today French and Dutch. Only a portion of them lived in today’s Germany.And that the Christianization of Central,Northern,and Eastern Europe,was mostly done by force. In whichever country it took place. I don’t deny that ethnicity was unknown in those days.But it wasn’t nearly as important as it is thought of today.Many of the “German” nobles in the East had Slav ancestry. If the Germans were so racist that wouldn’t be true.Even the last (until 1918) Grand Dukes of Mecklenberg were from a Slav descended family (.Pribislav ,of the Obotrite Slav tribe) And throughout Silesia,Pomerania,and Bohemia,a large part of the “German” nobility came from Slavic descend.The “Slavic” Kings of Bohemia were some of the most zealous “colonizers” in the East. And even supporters of the Teutonic Knights. The capital of East Prussia ,Konigsberg” was named for Ottokar II of the Slav Přemyslid dynasty of Bohemia.

Arguing over history with you is pointless.When you don’t understand the differences in peoples thinking from the Middle Ages. And conflate the 19th-20th Century thinking with the thinking of the past. We can’t have a serious conversation,I’m afraid.You will continue to be anti-German I have little doubt. But at least I won’t need to continue to defend Germans against baseless charges.

You are still ignoring the historical facts that even German nationalists admit and are proven by German sources. This is why you “don’t understand” as you admit. Instead of denying history you should study it. Your denial even out-performs German nationalists like Jordan and Treitschke that proudly admit the genocide and the military conquest and openly refer to those territories as colonies. Your allegations of being “anti-German” are helpless personal attacks. This is like denying the genocide against the Native American peoples and then react to the irrefutable facts with allegations of being “anti-American”. Also your other attempts to deviate with misleading speculations don’t change any of the historical facts. The massacres against Saxons and Slavs, the anti-Slavic laws and countless German wars of aggression against Slavic peoples over the centuries refute your revisionist agenda of denial. Like todays “freedom and democracy” propaganda “convert the country to Christianity” was only a pretext for the German invaders to pillage and commit genocide. Calling 4500 murdered Saxons “some” is an understatement.
Germany also lost its colonies in Africa where it committed genocide to replace the indigenous peoples and rob thier resources, too. The loss of a part of its colonies on Slavic territory is nothing different. In letting Germany keep a large part of those Slavic territories the Allies were indeed very generous towards thier defeated enemy and that even twice – after WW1 and WW2. This generousity proved to be self-defeating and naive. Your charge against the Allies (they “over did it”) is baseless and not the historical facts about the genocide against Slavic peoples.

I am impressed by your knowledge, your perspective, and by the way you have presented your points of argument.

Once again, you have exposed how historical experiences in one era or region have parallels and similarities with others.

It is perfectly natural for nation-states to strive to reacquire territories, which had been lost to other states as the result of war. Such changes measure the ebb and flow of history. So, it was for the Soviet Union’s efforts to regain territories (once part of the Russian Empire) lost in World War One, and for Germany to strive to do the same. And so it is for Russia to seek to do so now after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In the past decade, there has been a movement toward popular referendums, which are intended to determine national affiliation and/or independence. (Scotland, Brexit, Puerto Rico, Catalonia, Crimea come to mind.) I hope that the use of such referendums takes hold, and the United nations could formalize (and thus legalize) the process.

Without US support the nazis would have never been able to attack Russia. After WW2 US support for the nazis continued to wage war against Russia.
By creating and arming ISIS the US empire tries to repeat this strategy to destroy Russia and its allies.

“The outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion by GM and Ford of their Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks…. On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored “mule” 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich’s medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as “the backbone of the German Army transportation system.”….

After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing… Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne… ”http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4368

“U.S. investment in Germany accelerated rapidly after Hitler came to power, despite the Depression and Germany’s default on virtually all of its government and commercial loans. Commerce Department reports show that U.S. investment in Germany increased some 48.5 percent between 1929 and 1940, while declining sharply everywhere else in continental Europe.”http://representativepress.blogspot.de/2004/09/hitler-history-lesson-banagor.html

“Why did Churchill say that Poland was the ‘greedy hyena of Europe’ ? Could it be because Poland participated with Germany in the partition of the Czechoslovak state?”

Actually, Churchill never uttered those words in any of his speeches or interviews. The expression stems from a passage in his memoir book “The gathering storm”. He wrote:

“And now, when every one of these aids and advantages has been squandered and thrown away, Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland — to that very Poland which with hyena appetite had only six months before joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak state.”

So, yes, Churchill’s likening of Poland to hyenas is entirely based upon the track record of this Nazi sidekick country in the year of 1938.

Here, I have to mildly disagree however: Please don’t insult hyenas. Hyenas are clever animals with a most distinguished survival instinct. What ‘cleverness’ and ‘survival instinct’ could ever be found in a Pshek? Believe me, I’ve had the honour of being a ‘pen friend’ of some of these specimina at La Russophobe. Absolutely fabulous garbage, the whole lot!

I don’t know. I have followed this site very closely since the darkest days of the Banderist scourge in places like Odessa and Slavyansk. I also agree with the the Saker and Pepe Escobar that the only way out of the hideous block universe of Neoliberalism and US global military hegemony and their endless succession of wars and destabilization is through a multipolar paradigm under the framework of international law, hopefully leading to the betterment of material conditions for all humanity.
But I simply cannot accept that there was no Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. I will accept that the Polish 2nd Republic was just about an open sore on the face of central Europe, but how can you explain away the Katyn massacre? What about the three conferences held between Nazis and the Soviets between 1939 and 1940 with plans to liquidate the Polish ruling class? I could even shrug off endless claims about Holodomor being the provocation for Bandera’s evil actions in WW2, I can even accept the Slavophilism of Aleksander Dugin, but I find this article incredibly hard to believe. Let’s just say I will follow you as far as to point out to people who will listen to me that Putin is not Stalin (which is hard to profess in America, circa 2017) but this is just too much. This article seems to contradict everything I have learned over the past 30+ years about the partition of Poland in 1939. I need to see some sources on all of this and ones that seem more credible than everything I have read in my life.

Whilst I feel indebted to you for the information and insight I have gained since the downing of MH17 on 17 July 2014, I think you are badly mistaken on this issue.

Whilst what you write about the treachery of the Polish Pilsudski government and most of the Western democracies prior to 1 September 1939 is true, this cannot excuse the even more cynical conduct of Stalin after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1939 and his subsequent blind trust in Hitler right up to the launch of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941.

This also ignores the fact that Britain under Churchill[1], tacitly supported by America under President Roosevelt (FDR), continued to fight Nazi Germany. FDR’s support of Britain and the Soviet Union was contrary to the wishes of many of America’s wealthy elite.

Stalin’s trust in Hitler was so blind that he even ignored warnings by German Communist Richard Sorge[2] (1985-1944), who worked at the German embassy in Tokyo, at least one defecting German soldier (who as shot for his trouble), and by American intelligence, that Nazi Germany was preparing an invasion.

Had Stalin heeded these warnings, then surely the scale of the military disaster prior to the battle of Moscow in 1941 could have been mitigated.

Instead, Stalin refused to pass on the warnings to Red Army commanders whilst the Soviet Union continued to send, right up until the morning of 22 June 1941, by rail across the border, much of the raw materials needed by Nazi Germany to both continue its war against Britain and for the coming invasion of the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately the vast tragedy did not end at Moscow in December 1941. Before Nazi Germany was finally vanquished in May 1945 25 million Soviet citizens, by one rough estimate were to lose their lives.[3]

FOOTNOTES

[1] Churchill is a paradoxical figure. In October 1944, in contrast to his legendary defiance of Nazi Germany during the 1940 Battle of Britain, he cynically betrayed (with Stalin’s collusion) the Greek ELAS fighters who had herocially resisted Nazi Germany. They were tricked into disarming, whilst Greeks, who had collaborated with the German occupiers, were rearmed. (See https://candobetter.net/Grrek Civil War, “The Kapetanios” (1973) by Dominique Eudes)

[2] Any year 8 student of German would know that ‘Sorge’ is (roughly) pronounced ‘sorga’ and not ‘sorj’, as I originally thought.

[3] I personally doubt that a country, even as large as the Soviet Union, could have continued to resist Nazi Germany if even more lives had been lost. In comparison, between December 1941 and August 1945, the United States lost 400,000 lives fighting Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Japanese Empire. That loss must have been terrible to endure, but it is still an order of magnitude less than 25 million lost by the Soviet Union.

I won’t try to explain here, what I believe are the reasons for this enormous disparity here but I reject any notion that it is due to any inherent inherent inferiority of the Soviet peoples as much of the Eastern Front war porn, written since 1945 says, both explicitly and implicitly.

Regarding Richard Sorge, the German Communist spy who worked in the German Embassy in Tokyo and whose warnings about Operation Barbarossa were ignored by Stalin:

Richard Sorge and 34 other members of his spy ring were discovered and then arrested on 18 October 1941. “The Japanese made three overtures to the Soviets, offering to trade Sorge for one of their own spies. However, the Soviets declined all the offers, maintaining that Sorge was unknown to them.” (http://covert-history.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Sorge) Most likely, Stalin betrayed Richard Sorge because he did not wish it to be known that he had been warned about the German invasion plans. Richard Sorge was hanged by the Japanese on 7 November 1944.

Khrushchev posthumously awarded Sorge with the title of Hero of the Soviet Union on 5 November 1964.

Yes, the Soviet Union did invade Poland, as well as Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and the whole eastern half of Romania; then built up a huge military force along Germany’s eastern frontier. What were the German generals to make of that?

Your post seems to take sides with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union!

You do realise that Australia and other Western democracies were allied were with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany during the Second World War?

Given their plans to invade the Soviet Union after they had conquered Western Europe and the Balkans, German generals could hardly object to the Red Army occupying Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and parts of Romania and Finland.

What the people of those countries thought about occupation by the Red Army is, of course, another matter.

After the war, General George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army, openly admitted that the Allies had fought against the wrong people.

He said about the Soviets:

Let us not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war.
George S. Patton

> September 30, 1938 Britain and Germany signed a Declaration on mutual nonaggression.

Few curious things about the pact

1) everyone talks lengths about failure of “Appeasement Policy” and stupidity of “Peace for our times” Chemberlaine’s Speech. But somehow fail to either mention this pact, which the speech was all about, or at least censor its name into some generic non-specific non-binding “Anglo-German declaration”.

2) Providing, this too was Poland-style no-guards bilateral pact, then UK was sardonicalyl correct in their phony war aka sitzkrieg. UK just had no legal standing to commit aggression against Germany, no matter what their relations with Poland war.

3) Wikipedia is adamantly censoring any mention of this – there would be no mention in articles about England or Third Reich. Though in some dark dusty corners like the article on Munich Betrayal, they forget to censor it.

Poland, 1939. Population 35 million.
21 million Poles. 3 million Jews. Slightly under a million Germans. 10 million White Russians and Ukrainians in the eastern part of the country.

This eastern area was seized by force by Poland in 1920.
There were hardly any Poles there.
Stalin seized this territory back in September 1939 following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and re incorporated it back into the Soviet Union.

In 1945, following the Nazi defeat, to compensate Poland for the loss of this eastern territory, Poland was allowed to seize Pomerania, Danzig, Silesia, the southern part of East Prussia, and Stettin from Germany. These territories had been German for about 800 years, and were populated almost 100% by Germans. Danzig for example had an exclusively German population of 750,000.

The German population in these territories was expelled with great brutality at the end of the war and immediately afterwards. 2 million Germans were massacred, many after the end of hostilities. 2 million German women were gang raped. 15 million Germans were expelled.

Poland is currently demanding reparations from Germany for wartime losses. A figure of $1 trillion has been raised. It could be argued that cannot have their cake and eat it. The extensive territories seized could be regarded as Poland’s compensation. Silesia had very valuable coal and mineral deposits. All the expellees might have claims for loss of property. Perhaps Germany should offer to pay this $1 trillion in return for all the territories lost in 1945.

This would recreate Germany within its 1937 borders (apart from the northern part of East Prussia, which was seized by the Soviet Union to become the Kaliningrad Oblast.)

However, this would create the problem of what to do with the many millions of Poles now living in the former German territories. They might not be too happy at becoming German citizens. Germany might not be too happy at having 15 million plus new Polish citizens.

Dude, I do not wanna be rude, but I cannot find here the following:
– pictures of the friendly encounter between the German and USSR armies, on the Poland territory. You may find them on the net.
– the Ultimatum gave by papasha Stalin (USSR) to Romania, to handover half of Moldova, which was occupied by he Russian Empire (under the name Basarabia), about two centuries before but managed to break out when Ulianov bet on his charm and allowed the peoples from Russia to decide if they wanna stay, or not. Well, Basarabia chose to get away as they were still speaking Romanian, and they were still over 80% of population. But Stalin, under the secret protocols of the Riebentrop-Molotov packt, decided to steal Basarabia, again! Then, by massive deportations and terror, he managed to reduce the Romanian majority to only 65%.

There are literally dozens of photos like the one below showing German and Russian troops meeting during the partition of Poland in 1939. Everyone appears to be quite friendly in these photos. Clearly their meeting was not one of two opposed armies, but of two allies.

Nonsense. There is a soldier’s camaraderie which has nothing to do with politics or politicians. you can find photos of Soviets and US soldiers and officers just as friendly to each other. Besides, Russians and Germans always had respect for each other, and none for the Poles I would add. And for good reasons.
The Saker

There are literally dozens of photos like the one below showing German and Russian troops meeting during the partition of Poland in 1939. Everyone appears to be quite friendly in these photos. Clearly their meeting was not one of two opposed armies, but of two allies.

Wow… I just lost a little respect for your opinions there Saker. Your argument that the USSR did not invade Poland in September 1939 because “Poland had collapsed as a state” is laughable. Such legal parsing has no place in an honest historical discussion.

First, the German/Russian negotiations regarding “spheres of influence” within Poland was an agreement to partition Poland. There is just no other way to spin it. What “influence” would the Russians or Germans have within the territory of Poland if the Polish state existed? If there was a presumption in these negotiations that the Polish state was to disappear in the near future, why would this presumption exist?

Nope Saker, the USSR clearly participated in the partitioning of Poland (with the Germans). This notion that the Russians decided to “occupy” (rather than invade) Eastern Poland to prevent the Germans from doing so is also ludicrous. The demarcation between the Russian and German occupation zones had already been agreed before the first German tank ever crossed the Polish frontier. When the Red Army met the Germans in Poland it was with handshakes and congratulations all around rather than any kind of tense military stand-off.

That the Russians waited to “occupy” Eastern Poland until it was clear that the Polish resistance was collapsing doesn’t alter the nature of their aggression against Poland. I’m sure the Russians would have preferred a more lengthy Polish stand against the Germans that would have weakened the Germans, but they wasted no time claiming their prize once they realized the extent of the Polish defeat.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.